Parenting style the key determinant of life chances, says Cameron ...

[Molesworth]

Today David Cameron gave a speech at thinktank Demos as part of their "Character Inquiry". In the speech Cameron refers to research carried out by Demos and makes the following bold claim: "the differences in child outcomes between a child born in poverty and a child born in wealth are no longer statistically significant when both have been raised by 'confident and able parents'."

Policy recommendations include training HVs to assess parent-child attachments and parenting styles.

Details of the inquiry are available here: www.demos.co.uk/projects/the-character-inquiry

And the research paper to which Cameron refers is available to download for free here: www.demos.co.uk/publications/parenting

They have a lot to answer for. They have presided over the breakdown of the family, and a promotion of 'all lifestyles are equal' mentality. We reap what they sow.

Interesting post on the LeftFootForward blog here about this, with analysis of the Demos report and links to other pieces of research.

WRT to 'WHat has New Labour done for us', there's this from the end of the post linked to above: 'A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report for Gingerbread analysed the relative impact on child poverty of (i) a tax allowance for married couples with children under five and (ii) an increase in the working tax credit for couples with children. Both cost £0.8 billion and had a similar impact on work incentives. The Tory marriage tax policy reduced child poverty by ?less than 10,000″ while the tax credit approach helped around 100,000 children out of poverty.'

Research has shown Labour's budgets over the last 12 years to be consistently redistributive (ie they have taken money from the richest and given it to the poorest). Not redistributive enough for my liking, but a lot more than the Tories would have done.

If you had read this thread properly you would see that no-one is suggesting that good parenting is not important, Wicked. Have you read the speech and the research paper?

I do believe that I have read the thread properly. I'm not totally thick, you know.

Wicked - that Labour presided over the breakdown of the family - erm I think Thatcher made a pretty impressive contribution to that.

Calm down, calm down! It is possible to level a criticism at David Cameron without automatically implying that the sun shines out of new labour's arse, you know!

atlantis - it is missing the point. The point is, that the gap between rich and poor should be less, NOT that we should be encouraging people to bring their children up to be doctors and lawyers.

Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer, and society needs dustmen and shop assistants as well as doctors and lawyers.

So, we should concentrate our efforts on looking after EVERYONE in society, NOT saying that if only you were a better parent, you too could be a lawyer or a doctor.

I have got nothing against DC for being rich, BUT I do think that he doesnt really, really understand what its like to be poor in Britain.
He was a member of the Bullingdon at Oxford. He has come a long way since then, and I do think he has more understanding of humanity than some of his predecessors, or some other Tories (naming no names).

swc - according to analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, 'Labour's budgets have been consistently redistributive in their effects. That is to say, if you look at who has gained and lost from the changes to the tax-benefit system since 1996/7, the gains are biggest at the bottom, disappear in the middle, with losses at the top.' From a summary of this paper.

The gap between rich and poor is meaningless because obviously you have a handful of people who are billionaires and some who have very little and little opportunity to fix their situation by themselves.

What you need to do is take these outliers out of the comparison because their numbers are fairly insignificant.

So, take the top and bottom 10% off and you won't find as wide a gap.

As someone has said already, it's the middle income people (the ones who studied hard and work hard for their children) that pay for those who don't/won't/can't work, not the super high earners. There just aren't enough of the super high earners to make a difference.

The more I think of this character stuff, the more it makes sense. I have a whole little microcosym of society in my own family, with one of my brothers who is able (physically and mentally) to work, but who doesn't give a shit about anyone else and is happy to take benefits (he has two boys who are under the EWO for not going to school). And I do know the whole story before anyone says I don't.

it ain't true that public sector workers are better paid, smallwhitecat - see Bad Science for an interesting debate about the stats (or lack of them).

Oh, and wicked, I'm not so sure the numbers of people in the bottom 10 per cent are insignificant. It might be reasonable to take out the billionaires on the grounds that there are very few of them (although IIRC far many than there were pre-1997) but I don't think the same applies at the other end.

Edam that sounds like a more sensible approach to the stats.

10% numberically off the top is exactly the same number as 10% off the bottom.

Why is it I worked so hard to avoid party politics myself and it descended into that

SWC have worked in the field,I have studied Psychology,at Grad level. I still am doing a linked subject at MA so read loads of papers on it every day- attachment research very linked to my field. This is my take on it,from what I have seen You may not agree, but I think it is valid opinion.

And nobody denied the parenting thing- as part of a package.And I even showed how my suggestions would be cost effective so the throwing money buit doesn't work at me either.

Why can't we just have one debate on MN without it becoming party lines? Please?

(that hold be undergrad level, but I have had wine)

Oh a relevant detour into my world for a mo.

historically, the work of Bowlby etc on attachment was used to explain Autism, and caused huge miosery for many parents. It still crops up every now and again,and a huge perventage of parents with SN kids I know were accused of bad parenting before their concerns were taken seriously. I thinik I am a decent aprent,I get aprenting support for ASDfrom aNHS employed Psych who seems to agree, yet it was certainly something I heard before anyone would take us seriously. DS3 is not in that vague category either, severe speech delay etc.

Attachment disorders exist, but they are hard to separate from a multitude of other causalities and they are not a solution but just another problem to solve- why did the attachment disorder happen? Blaming the parenting on a disorder if that is what is happening here is like blaming the weight gain on the chocolate for being in the fridge, someone had to put it there and you need to know why, and how to deal with that.
If there are all these irrevocably damaged kids out there, the solutions are what? HV's are not going to be any use at all. They refer, and most referrals get dropped. We have a care system that is not fit for purpose and all levels of intermediary help do not, in reality, exist in any substantial way. With support you have two options (if you can't get charity help): 1. collapse entirely needing emergency input 2. try your best and get no help.

It is easy to save money in this area, there are two ways. You can either blame the parents rather than taking a holistic approach, and withdraw all funding. Or you can put the cash where it actually works, which is cheaper anyway,and save loads in the long term through benefits,sickness,ill health, crime. But one thing is key: regardless of what people think of the parents, there is a new generation of kids who can be helped or abandoned to zerp future, and helping has to be a proactive thing. Promote parenting skills hell yes- I'll jump on that bandwagon. Make it the lone facor? No thanks. So little in life is caused by one factor anyway,and it stands to basic reason that if you pull the coping strategies out of someone and push their stress levels sky high they are
less likely to able to focus on the parenting. that'snot the same as giving people more money BTW: that'snot the solution. I know as a carer there are some peoplewho think I automatically ask for mmore, I do not. I simply want the barriers removed-smallthings like why on earth does carer'sallowance stop if you study- I mean, you stillend up doing the work and you'retrying to move forwards so why pull out the foundations? It's toolate for me anyway, but it seems that rhe system should be helping people out of the mire, not keeping them there.

And ditto so many other things-
funding for college places refused becuase someone did a degree 15 years ago which they cannot follow for whatever reason now and want to retrain; library closures (likely to happen here apparently); a childcare system that requires ytou to book a place years ormonths before ytou find a job, with a hefty deposit. HA estates designed withno facillities for medicalc are or acesss to real non-spar shops selling actual food. Silly little unnoticeable things that make everything harder until bang, someone goes under and society has to pick up the pieces at massive cost.

And now I have run out of rant and need to sleep. It'snot the loony ravings of a leftie though- everything I beleive in takes a large element of self helpand oomph to work,I just think that society / the economy / we benefits if we help people get that first leg up.

peachy how on earth are attachment disorders rare? 40% of children in the strange situation sample exhibited attachment disorders!

Peachy for government adviser. Cameron take note.

O've only ever met two children diagnosed with a clinical (as per ICD) attachment disorder.

Signs of an attachment disorder isn't necessarily the same thing is it? That menas they have certain symptoms-but not a fully fledged diagnosis,signs of ADarelinked to differnt thingsaren't they? perhaps there needs to be a different category- faulty attachment to diffentiate from full, diagnosed AD.

We need to know why this is happening. I imagine there are plenty of reasons in there. Bad parenting is not IMO going to be the only reason. Well, I don't think it is anyway. I know I struggled to bond with DS1 and that was becuase I went back to work at nine weeks; I am sure not all WOHM's find that but I wonder if those who don't want to be a WOHM might sometimes find it, we also need services for peoplewith PND as that is related. Parenting classes absolutely. But parenting clases doesn't mean blame. Whhich is what I think this is trying to do.you can't blame people for trying to aprent the way they were, or without guidance. You can sometimes change it, but that is they key. IMO. you can say it's all your fault faulty parents of the world,or you can try and change things. I'm not a bad parent but a regular monthly session with a Psych (originally for the boys ASD but Psych identified that we were, in her words, 'parenting in a vaccum') has helped my confidence hugely. And I think that feeds back to my boys.

I'm firmly in the doing something about it camp, me. Parenting that forms any bad base for development (whether diagnosed AD,symptoms of AD or just general a bit crapness) can be addressed,and simply focussing on the relationship once developed is starting in the wrong place,like joining a marathon 100M before the finish line.

Goodness that reads badly sorry, trying to BF /watch boys off school for snow day /think/ shift out of the way for DH fiddle with PC cables; I am not one of natures multi-taskers

Summarise:

I don't think that many kids have fullblown AD

The Demos research paper recommends Health Visitor assessment of the parent-child attachment between four and nine months, if I remember correctly. I don't know if this is too late (peachy?), but even if this is the optimum time to pick up on problems, I do wonder what additional training HVs will receive in order to carry out such assessments. I don't feel comfortable with the thought of HVs making uninformed judgements which might turn out to do more harm than good. I'd like to know what form(s) any subsequent intervention will take.

What worries me about Cameron's speech is his focus on the character of individuals with too little reference to the context in which character is formed. One of the authors of the Demos report highlights this in her even-handed piece in the Guardian when she says:

"We won't build a society of citizens of character simply by rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do bad ? we must address structural inequalities too. Our character develops in response to our environment ? if you are born into a world where your home life is marked by instability and violence, where you lack role models, where you can not even imagine a better life or a way out, the character required to survive is one of distrust, self-interest, and impulsiveness. Our character responds to our environment. It is not all a personal choice."

I think part of it is- people like Demos, HS, etc focus on the children (via parents if that works best),polticians tend to focus on the parents because thats a vote winner. poeple will happily distance themselves from,and condemn,adults but not children. I much prefer the former, and planning intervention in that context.

Attachment is an earlier the better thing, depending on what research you opt for- eg Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) suggested a sequence of development but I think there is definite good outcome possibility even if atatchment is poor when the parents is willing, otherwise how would adoption ever work(I know it ahs high failure rates but no guarantees- FILadored his adoptive family) and atatchment is aspecific type of bond; no attachment does not mean no bond of any kind IYSWIM, and the earlier you get in there the better the attachment is likely to be.

I ahve limited faith in HV attachment assessment; our HV is conspicuous only by her absence despite ds4 being HR ofASD (didnt even bother to come to do ASD screening test! Indeed,never met the woman, spoke to her once on phone) and when ds1 was assessed by SSD for the disability team they put on the form they didn't even know if there was a Dad in ds1's life t but bond with mum was good as he was sat on my lap....in actuality, Dh was there and DS1 was sat on his lap not mine! I was next to him holding his hand.

It's a pity the term 'character' is used in the report, as opposed to 'parenting practices', because character has implications of morality, backbone and other factors that come across as judgemental. It all starts to sound very Victorian, and not in a good way -- thinking of terms like the 'deserving poor'.

I wonder what the average caseload of the average HV is.